The Race for the ARAS.....

[ziggysego]

Marys have done us great over the years. Mary Davis next?

[Denn Forever]

Mary Byrne then?  She has the X Factor.

Hope Norris survives the hatchet job and at least gets nominated. 

[Mentalman]

Not to be ageist, but isn't Michael Dee a bit old?

I thought Presidents were meant to be relatively old. At least it adds some gravitas.

Can't see Norris as Presidential material. Would be guaranteed to do or say something daft somwhere down the line.

I know, you'd never see an american, italian, imf head man come out with something daft.  Btw, we used to have Bertie Ahern as our taoiseach.

In fairness the Taoiseach is voted for by the Dail, not the eltorate, directly anyway. The electorate hasn't done a bad job of selecting Presidents, by and large, although it's a job with limited power and until recently who's main trait needed to be the ability to bite your lip, keep your mouth shut and smile at the appropriate moment.

The people know who the party leaders are in advance of the election, they have a fair idea who will lead the country if they achieve a dail majority.

I see what you're saying but people vote in the general election for varying reasons. For instance I give my number one preference to a Labour candidate in my constituency as I have a lot of respect for him and I know him personally. I don't see that as a vote for Gilmour as Taoiseach, nor even as Labour leader, the electorate definitely have no say in that , although I do realise if enough people vote Labour that may be the consequence. It's only recently that we've seen the resurrection of the type of "presidential" general election that may have been about in the days of De Valera or Lynch, where leader's are the main focus of the national campaign, if not at constituency level.

[Denn Forever]

Just reading the DARRAGH Ó SÉ  thread in the GAA section.  As I said, he talks so much sense, how about him for President?

[saffron sam2]

Nuala O'Loan.

[noskill]

Nuala O'Loan.

Jedward.

[Canalman]

I see the usual eNGOists are circling around looking for the gig.

Presume there will be a FF/FG and Labour candidate. Maybe a "left alliance" candidate also.

[Capt Pat]

So am I right in thinking that if David Norris wins the presidency and being a prod he will want to take the queen up the aras. I am  not sure she would enjoy it.

[Declan]

Heat turning up on Norris:

Real story behind that Norris interview
JOHN WATERS

'Magill' felt Norris needed to be protected from his own foolhardiness

FOR APPROXIMATELY a year in 2001/2002, I was "consultant editor" to Magill magazine, then undergoing a substantial makeover.

My role involved general creative input and supporting the newly appointed young editor, who had day-to-day editorial responsibility but would occasionally refer trickier issues to me.

One afternoon, in early January 2002, I took a telephone call from Helen Lucy Burke, an occasional contributor to Magill .

I had never, to the best of my recollection, spoken to her before.

She was best known as a restaurant critic, and had contributed a number of such pieces to Magill.

I admired her writing style but, to be frank, couldn't see the point of restaurant reviews.

I knew her by reputation: honest and direct to a fault, and fearless when it came to doing her job.

The purpose of her call was to ask my advice. On the basis of a commission from the editor, she had conducted an interview with Senator David Norris about his life and perspectives, and was now deeply concerned about some aspects of that interview.

I gathered that she was a friend of Norris but had been shocked by things he had said on the subject of paedophilia. At my request, she read me several extracts from the transcript of the interview.

I remember being astonished by the content. I do not recall the verbatim quotations but, in any event, these were similar or identical to the content of the interview later published in Magill.

One quotation made references to "classic paedophilia" in ancient Greece, Norris asserting that there was "something to be said" for the approach in which a young man was introduced to sexual behaviour by an older man.

I also recall something to the effect that he, Norris, would have relished such an entanglement when he was younger.

In another quotation, he proposed that there was a spectrum of child abuse, with the example of a Christian Brother putting his hand into a boy's pocket being at the least serious end of that spectrum.

In another extract, Norris seemed to be saying that sexually abused children might suffer more from the investigation of their abuser than from the abuse.

The thrust of his argument seemed to be summed up in two phrases that also featured in the Magill article, to the effect that there was "a lot of nonsense" and "complete and utter public hysteria" about paedophilia.

My first response was that Burke must have misinterpreted Norris's arguments, because he seemed to be engaging in inappropriate casuistry and hair-splitting on an explosive and sensitive subject.

He would need to be crazy, I told her, to say these things in public.

She was emphatic that she had not misunderstood him, and said that she had taped the interview.

She said they had had a heated argument about it and he had refused to back down. After transcribing the interview, she had called him to read him the extracts she found problematic, but he said, "Yes, that's fine."

In the several years I had known Norris, we'd had some public jousts on various public issues, but I had always found him personable and engaging.

I felt instantly that the interview had the potential to land him in very hot water, possibly even to bring an end to his political career.

I had no wish for this and felt that he needed to be protected from his own foolhardiness.

I suggested to Burke that she write up the article with the quotes included, and call Norris again, explaining to him the context in which his remarks would appear and offering him another opportunity to amend or retract them.

I also told her that she should tell him she had spoken to me and that I had expressed in the strongest terms that, in his own interests, he should reconsider.

Some days later Burke called me again and said that she had done as I requested and that Norris after proposing some minor amendments – which she had incorporated into the article – had pronounced himself happy for his views to go into print.

"So be it," I said.

For several days after publication, no other media organisation picked up on the interview, and Magill received no communication from Norris.

Although the interview was in my view sensational, I proposed that no attempt should be made to promote or draw attention to it, and the editor agreed with this approach.

When the interview was finally picked up a week later by Ireland on Sunday , I heard Norris on radio claiming that he had been misrepresented.

However, he contacted neither me nor the editor of Magill to complain about the Magill article, or about any aspect of how Magill or Burke had handled the matter.

I recall these events because, last Tuesday, I was referred to in an RTÉ Radio 1 Liveline discussion as the editor responsible for the publication of the controversial 2002 interview with Norris.

This is true, to the extent I have described.

I have had no communication with or from Burke since 2002.

[AQMP]

To be fair, Norris (a bit of a media darling) has some explaining to do here.

[magpie seanie]

Summary of David Norris's woes here. You know you're in trouble when you are claiming you were misquoted.

I think it has to be someone with a little political nous. One of the functions of the job is to only open your mouth when the government requires you to open your mouth. It'd be hard to see some explicitly anti-establishment figure doing that and it would quickly get messy. Michael D looks the best bet - so far

Seems like Norris's Adi Roche moment.

It's a bit depressing that we can't muster a decent candidate and the fact that you may be right about Michael Dee is depressing. Though he will undoubtedly have to face his Adi Roche moment too when someone drags up the recording of him calling Michael Graham a w**ker on the George hook show. As unpresidential language it far outstrips "wow!".

Michael Dee called Michael Graham a w**ker on the George hook show? He'll be getting my vote so.

+1.

Did this really happen?

[AbbeySider]

Summary of David Norris's woes here. You know you're in trouble when you are claiming you were misquoted.

I think it has to be someone with a little political nous. One of the functions of the job is to only open your mouth when the government requires you to open your mouth. It'd be hard to see some explicitly anti-establishment figure doing that and it would quickly get messy. Michael D looks the best bet - so far

Seems like Norris's Adi Roche moment.

It's a bit depressing that we can't muster a decent candidate and the fact that you may be right about Michael Dee is depressing. Though he will undoubtedly have to face his Adi Roche moment too when someone drags up the recording of him calling Michael Graham a w**ker on the George hook show. As unpresidential language it far outstrips "wow!".

Michael Dee called Michael Graham a w**ker on the George hook show? He'll be getting my vote so.

+1.

Did this really happen?

It happened on a live recording from the Kings Head pub in Galway.
Priceless radio!

Mikey Graham was being the pompous condescending right wing bigot he is and got in a heated debate with Michael D. Im sure its on Youtube

[AbbeySider]

Did anyone see the program Living With Lucy when she visited David Norris?

He has paintings of naked boys all over his house, and they were referred to in the show.

[Bogball XV]

To be fair, Norris (a bit of a media darling) has some explaining to do here.

He explained it at the time and I heard him do so again on Tuesday with Pat Kenny. 

It's not really that sensational when you hear it - any 2 hr conversation which is condensed into several small extracts can be sensationalised.

[deiseach]

It's not really that sensational when you hear it - any 2 hr conversation which is condensed into several small extracts can be sensationalised.

If a heterosexual were to claim that there was "something to said" for a state of affairs where men would prepare young women for a life of sexual activity there'd be uproar (yes Orior, I know). Norris got away with it then because he is viewed as a charming eccentric. Now it's being viewed through the prism of him running for President.